My new mission (on this board and in life)

[John Galt]

I haven't posted in a while as I've been moving and I've been thinking a lot. My last post was about Fahrenheit 9/11 and the pain I felt about the arrogance of American media and politics. Some people took my post to be a statement against the sorry state of politics in America - that isn't quite right. It isn't politics that distresses me, it is the way argument, representation, and thought develop in America. It is not just that America (especially America under Bush) has framed the world entirely in binary oppositions (good/evil, us/them, terrorists/liberators, etc.), it is that the media has become a useful collection of repeaters with no substance or understanding.

Reading this board (and I'm talking about political threads), it is easy to see not just polarization at work, but also pathetic attempts at comprehending the world. People read the same media accounts to fit whatever narrow worldview they are beholden to. In other words, people understand the "real" by filtering it through their "worldview." That "worldview" is determined by how they understand the "real." The "real" is understood by the filtering through a "worldview." And so on and on. This is what Baudrillard calls Mobius strip epistemology and I can't think of a better way to describe what has happened here.

I guess I've reached my "postmodern" moment - I no longer have any pretense of understanding through the "real" as it is filtered through culture and mass media. I don't have any illusions of an arrogant understanding of what is happening in Iraq/Afghanistan/America.

So, now, I'm left with little to argue and little to say about what is happening. What should I say instead? I'm not ready to take the QS pledge (although I thought about it). No, instead when I write about politics on this board, I plan to attack the constructions of hate and fear that plague modern American discourse. And so, I will attack those that are anti-thought, anti-tolerance, anti-understaning, and anti-nuance - not because I have an illusion of knowing what the "real" is, but because I'm tired of reading and hearing nonsense day after day.

And so I start here . . .

[Blackadar]

Oh shit, another crusade.

[John Galt]

For an example of the insane discourse occuring in America, go to this link and click "protestors supporting John Kerry" in the first story:

http://www.rnc.org/rncresearch/read.aspx?ID=4576

The GOP website links to an article that is hateful, misinformed, and just bizarre. I can't think of a better example of what is wrong in America right now.

[sovereignstar]

*cues Rage Against the Machine"s No Shelter"

http://sovereignstar.com/ratm_noshelter.mp3

[John Galt]

For another example, read an article in this month's Harper's about the Republican National Convention by Lewis Lapham. It talks about the horrible the ideas at the RNC were. Amazingly, it is written in the past tense by someone who was at the RNC - even though the RNC has yet to occur.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

*cues Rage Against the Machine"s No Shelter"

Strangely, "Fistful of Steel" is playing on my Ipod right now. Weird.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Oh shit, another crusade.

Your just jealous that you don't have your own crusade.

[Marmel]

...and here I thought this was a sports board

[albionmoonlight]

Welcome back, JG. Are you in Iowa, yet? I've managed to make it to the 4th Cir.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Strangely, "Fistful of Steel" is playing on my Ipod right now. Weird.

Some speak the sounds
But speak in silent voices
Like radio is silent
Though it fills the air with noises
Its transmissions bring submission
As ya mold to the unreal

[rkmsuf]

I'm thinking about cutting down on the amount of dairy I have.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Marmel

...and here I thought this was a sports board

Dumbass - who told you that? Go write another FBCB dynasty.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Marmel

...and here I thought this was a sports board

LOL!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Welcome back, JG. Are you in Iowa, yet? I've managed to make it to the 4th Cir.

I am in Iowa and enjoying a much slower pace of life. How's the 4th Cir. (other than facist and fast)?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I'm thinking about cutting down on the amount of dairy I have.

Small steps.

[CamEdwards]

I love you, JohnGalt. Glad to see you're back and enjoying life in Iowa.

[albionmoonlight]

Politically, 4th Cir. and 5th are pretty much identical. It will, however, be nice to do some cases that don't involve people trying to bring contraban in from Mexico (which happens often enough to dominate the 5th Cir. case load).

In terms of chambers specifics, I'm liking my new job a lot better than my old one, though the wife and I like New Orleans better than North Carolina. So it's a bit of a wash.

Oh, and being a first time homeowner rocks.

[Ajaxab]

I don't know if I necessarily want to delve into this discussion as I may end up in a wormhole, but I'll at least post this response.

I have not read enough primary Baudrillard to be conversant about his positions on a lot of issues, but I do know enough to suggest that you seem to have come to the point of disillusionment that his ideas (again, from what I have read about, not directly in, his works) breed. The question his ideas foster seems to be, 'If there really isn't a real and we can never understand it in Baudrillardian terms, then why should we bother with any kind of crusade?' Why should anyone attack anything if there can be no real to be understood? To attack simulacra is to attack a mirage and therefore seemingly pointless. Attacking the artificial positions of artificial people in what we might have to conclude to be artificial ways just can't be meaningful. What is then left to do? If we hold to Baudriallard's position, attacking the nonsensical thoughts of people immersed in simulacra can't do much. Disney's still going to be raking in the cash.

Could you define what you mean by "anti-tolerance"? Isn't the act of attacking anti-tolerance intolerant of anti-tolerance or am I misreading how you are using the term?

[dacman]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Could you define what you mean by "anti-tolerance"? Isn't the act of attacking anti-tolerance intolerant of anti-tolerance or am I misreading how you are using the term?

Glad to see I'm not the only one that views that as a conundrum, a philisophical oxymoron if you will.

[The Afoci]

I get that feeling on mushrooms sometimes too. Then I figure out I am holding a can of coffee and not the newpaper.

[GrantDawg]

Glad your back, JG.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I don't know if I necessarily want to delve into this discussion as I may end up in a wormhole, but I'll at least post this response.

I have not read enough primary Baudrillard to be conversant about his positions on a lot of issues, but I do know enough to suggest that you seem to have come to the point of disillusionment that his ideas (again, from what I have read about, not directly in, his works) breed. The question his ideas foster seems to be, 'If there really isn't a real and we can never understand it in Baudrillardian terms, then why should we bother with any kind of crusade?' Why should anyone attack anything if there can be no real to be understood? To attack simulacra is to attack a mirage and therefore seemingly pointless. Attacking the artificial positions of artificial people in what we might have to conclude to be artificial ways just can't be meaningful. What is then left to do? If we hold to Baudriallard's position, attacking the nonsensical thoughts of people immersed in simulacra can't do much. Disney's still going to be raking in the cash.

Could you define what you mean by "anti-tolerance"? Isn't the act of attacking anti-tolerance intolerant of anti-tolerance or am I misreading how you are using the term?

Baudrillard, in my view, should only be read as criticizing epistemology and representation and not ontology. That is, questions of what the world is and how we should act within it are secondary without an effective epistemology and communication. So asking what we should do in a sense, misses the criticism. Also, Baudrillard has no illusions that there is a better system (he is entirely anti-theory). He also doesn't speak of resistance (like some postmodernists and poststructuralists). Instead, I think Baudrillard seeks to engage in strategies that unsettle modernist epistemologies.

Now, I'm not totally on the Baudrillard train, but I am taking up the mission of attacking epistemologies and constructions that are problematic. And while Disney may rake in the cash, I (or Baudrillard) don't really care.

As for anti-tolerance (entirely my term), I'm just referring to those worldviews that don't attempt to understand the "other" in any meaningful way.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I love you, JohnGalt. Glad to see you're back and enjoying life in Iowa.

Your just jealous because they even have tortillas in Iowa.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

I get that feeling on mushrooms sometimes too. Then I figure out I am holding a can of coffee and not the newpaper.

I missed you too (but not the Crawfish).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Glad your back, JG.

Glad to be back.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Baudrillard, in my view, should only be read as criticizing epistemology and representation and not ontology. That is, questions of what the world is and how we should act within it are secondary without an effective epistemology and communication. So asking what we should do in a sense, misses the criticism. Also, Baudrillard has no illusions that there is a better system (he is entirely anti-theory). He also doesn't speak of resistance (like some postmodernists and poststructuralists). Instead, I think Baudrillard seeks to engage in strategies that unsettle modernist epistemologies.

Now, I'm not totally on the Baudrillard train, but I am taking up the mission of attacking epistemologies and constructions that are problematic. And while Disney may rake in the cash, I (or Baudrillard) don't really care.

As for anti-tolerance (entirely my term), I'm just referring to those worldviews that don't attempt to understand the "other" in any meaningful way.

I suppose this would be more about Baudrillard than about you, but isn't epistemology necessarily tied up in ontology? Don't we have to have an understanding of who (or perhaps attempt to understand) we are in order to understand how we know?

I'm also curious about what you mean about worldviews that don't attempt to understand the 'other' in a meaningful way. Can you elaborate?

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Baudrillard, in my view, should only be read as criticizing epistemology and representation and not ontology.

Ack, the secret phrase planted in my brain by Ukranian Mafia! Now I need to go kill some puppies

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I suppose this would be more about Baudrillard than about you, but isn't epistemology necessarily tied up in ontology? Don't we have to have an understanding of who (or perhaps attempt to understand) we are in order to understand how we know?

I'm also curious about what you mean about worldviews that don't attempt to understand the 'other' in a meaningful way. Can you elaborate?

I think we need ontology to have epistemology and vice versa. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't criticize epistemology independent of having a stable and functional ontology. So even if I can't say I know what to do, I can say that the way other people are reaching their conclusions is totally screwed. I, like Baudrillard, have no replacement system (nor do I, or Baudrillard, really want one), but I'm still going to be a pain in the ass for those people that presume understanding that they can't possibly have.

As for "understanding the other," I mean the ability to situate yourself in the metaphorical shoes of the other person. To imagine what it would be like to be an Arab American is an important part of understanding the terrorism civil liberties debate in America. To imagine what it would be like to be a gay American is pivotal to understand what is at issue in a gay marriage amendment debate.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Ack, the secret phrase planted in my brain by Ukranian Mafia! Now I need to go kill some puppies

Fritz = The Kiev Candidate

[JonInMiddleGA]

I plan to attack

And so, I will attack

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone admit more blantantly that they're planning to troll.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Marmel

...and here I thought this was a sports board

Apparently not six months before an election.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone admit more blantantly that they're planning to troll.

I don't even get the announcement.

[Glengoyne]

Oh and This is quite timely, because yesterday I asked myself "Where the hell is John Galt?". I spent some of the few minutes I spent here yesterday, searching for the last time you posted.

I was going to Ping: John Galt this morning, and mention that I thought your last post was about July 11th(Your Fahrenheit 9/11 post).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone admit more blantantly that they're planning to troll.

Not really. I've seen you "attack" people's arguements without trolling. I believe that is what he is saying.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Not really. I've seen you "attack" people's arguements without trolling. I believe that is what he is saying.

And I believe you're giving him far too much credit.
SD can take the observation FWIW, it's his call, not mine.

[CamEdwards]

they have tortillas in Iowa?

that both depresses and inspires me.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Fritz = The Kiev Candidate

Fritz the Chicken Kiev?

[Franklinnoble]

I'm a little fuzzy... what was the old mission?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'm a little fuzzy... what was the old mission?

Someone ask the Ladies man?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I believe you're giving him far too much credit.
SD can take the observation FWIW, it's his call, not mine.

And so the hate rays from JonInMiddleGA continue. Anyone who says my post was a statement that I'm going to troll hasn't bothered to read it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Oh and This is quite timely, because yesterday I asked myself "Where the hell is John Galt?". I spent some of the few minutes I spent here yesterday, searching for the last time you posted.

I was going to Ping: John Galt this morning, and mention that I thought your last post was about July 11th(Your Fahrenheit 9/11 post).

Damn it - I blew a chance to get a Ping.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'm a little fuzzy and old

Does your blog have a quote of the moment yet?

[QuikSand]

Good luck, JG.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think we need ontology to have epistemology and vice versa. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't criticize epistemology independent of having a stable and functional ontology. So even if I can't say I know what to do, I can say that the way other people are reaching their conclusions is totally screwed. I, like Baudrillard, have no replacement system (nor do I, or Baudrillard, really want one), but I'm still going to be a pain in the ass for those people that presume understanding that they can't possibly have.

As for "understanding the other," I mean the ability to situate yourself in the metaphorical shoes of the other person. To imagine what it would be like to be an Arab American is an important part of understanding the terrorism civil liberties debate in America. To imagine what it would be like to be a gay American is pivotal to understand what is at issue in a gay marriage amendment debate.

I'm willing to buy the epistemology/ontology distinction you cite. I'm still not seeing the value of a Baudrillardian perspective though. To attack all who presume understanding they can't possibly have renders attack meaningless. Wouldn't all of us fall into the category of those who presume understanding we can't possibly have? None of us are omniscient so at some level we all practice this kind of presumption.

In thinking through placing oneself in the metaphorical shoes of the 'other,' what does this look like practically? For whatever reason, this is generally perceived to be at the very least, tacit support for, or at most, complete advocation of the 'other's' position. How does a person place oneself in the shoes of the other in a way that does not compromise their own values or support values they find untenable? Sadly, it seems as though making this move of empathy equates to joining the enemy for many.

In a sense, I guess this kind of empathy relates to presuming understanding we can't possibly have. I can never claim to know the experience of the other given the Baudriallardian perspective. At what point can I say that I have empathized with another?

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Oh and This is quite timely, because yesterday I asked myself "Where the hell is John Galt?". I spent some of the few minutes I spent here yesterday, searching for the last time you posted.

I was going to Ping: John Galt this morning, and mention that I thought your last post was about July 11th(Your Fahrenheit 9/11 post).

I always though he was hanging out with his buddy Francisco D'Anconia somwhere in Colorado, at least until Dagny Taggert found him.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Reading this board (and I'm talking about political threads), it is easy to see ... but also pathetic attempts at comprehending the world. People read the same media accounts...

Hey, when you get back from seeing everything first hand, be sure to report in.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Hey, when you get back from seeing everything first hand, be sure to report in.

I have no belief that I have any better knowledge than anyone else (and now, I'm not going to pretend that I do). I do, however, believe lots of the political threads are just horrible in terms of argument (and I used to think nothing was worse than the Chubby v. Bubba "discussions").

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Hey, when you get back from seeing everything first hand, be sure to report in.

That's part of the mission. It's an ambious plan for sure.

[Ksyrup]

What's YOUR mission?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm willing to buy the epistemology/ontology distinction you cite. I'm still not seeing the value of a Baudrillardian perspective though. To attack all who presume understanding they can't possibly have renders attack meaningless. Wouldn't all of us fall into the category of those who presume understanding we can't possibly have? None of us are omniscient so at some level we all practice this kind of presumption.

In thinking through placing oneself in the metaphorical shoes of the 'other,' what does this look like practically? For whatever reason, this is generally perceived to be at the very least, tacit support for, or at most, complete advocation of the 'other's' position. How does a person place oneself in the shoes of the other in a way that does not compromise their own values or support values they find untenable? Sadly, it seems as though making this move of empathy equates to joining the enemy for many.

In a sense, I guess this kind of empathy relates to presuming understanding we can't possibly have. I can never claim to know the experience of the other given the Baudriallardian perspective. At what point can I say that I have empathized with another?

Don't mistake Baudrillard for radical skepticism. There is not a statement against "reality" as a construct, just a statement that postmodern America is constructed with no ability to access the "real" (and the "real" being a combination of conventional wisdom and understanding). The attack on understanding is not universal and equal - there are better and worse arguments and better and worse simulations. The point is to criticize those works that are incoherent in their attempt to repeat and revive failing simulations.

As for the "other" issue, I think you are exactly right that understanding the "other" is often perceived as tacit support for the "other's" position - that is the argument I want to fight against. Understanding is not the same as agreement and I'm tired of the with us or against us rhetoric that constructs the world in that way. As to whether someone really can understand the other (or at what point does understanding occur), I don't know the answer. That, however, is not a reason to me not to try. Understanding is an essential element, in my mind to good argument and good policy.